This making sense to you and Van Flandern is perfectly ok. If you think that Einstein's model of gravity can't answer Van Flandern's questions then you are mistaken. The questions are specious for somebody who claims to understand GR. Gr doesn't reduce to Newtonian gravity in the weak field in the way he suggests. He is suggesting that Newtonian gravity is isomorphic with GR in the weak field. Newtonian gravity is ONLY an APPROXIMATION for GR in the weak field. If the weak field can be our solar system then the approximation becomes increasingly useless as r (from the center of mass of the solar system) decreases. You research Van Flandern's question about how the gravity escapes from the black hole wrt GR. Van Flandern has been questioning GR with the speed of gravity argument for ~ 10 years. He had a chance to make a prediction for the result to the Kopeikin experiment (we should know these results soon) but he 'chickened out' in the end. Go over to sci.physics and do a google searh for Tom Van Flandern and you can review all the discussions he has had with some relativity experts over the years. Stephen Speicher started the thread wrt Van Flandern's prediction for Segei Kopeikin's recent experiment to measure the speed gravity propagates. Van Flandern also claims that no relativistic adjustment for GPS clocks is required for the system to work.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
GR can easily show why the adjustment is necessary.
A easy way to do it.
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
You might start your research (if you are interested) on the last Van Flandern question here. Essentially the answer is gravity doesn't come from inside the black hole (the grav field extends from far away to r = 0.)
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm

• Bruce-Please explain the black hole problem for me - yaniru - November 5, 2002 - 21:07 UTC
  • I don't know for sure... - bruce - November 5, 2002 - 21:22 UTC
    • QM not needed for black holes - yaniru - November 6, 2002 - 03:03 UTC
      • I do have an alternate explanation... - bruce - November 6, 2002 - 15:59 UTC
        • I just read it - yaniru - November 7, 2002 - 14:26 UTC
• I don't think Van Flandern is a genius - aurino_s - November 5, 2002 - 21:34 UTC
  • The way I see it... - bruce - November 5, 2002 - 21:52 UTC
    • Van Flandern has always argued GR is wrong - yaniru - November 6, 2002 - 12:59 UTC
      • I'm with Yanniru - aurino_s - November 6, 2002 - 13:58 UTC
        • Well... - harvey1 - November 6, 2002 - 15:38 UTC
          • You're barking the wrong tree here - aurino_s - November 6, 2002 - 17:22 UTC
            • It's fun - harvey1 - November 6, 2002 - 19:13 UTC
              • He finally wiggled out of the forum(nt) - yaniru - November 6, 2002 - 19:47 UTC
              • Ruquist (Harv) and Yaniru (Ruquist) wiggle more than Dr. Dick - obviouslymike - November 7, 2002 - 04:19 UTC
                • This must be the vile michael w. Pearson - yanniru - December 3, 2003 - 19:00 UTC
          • Lest any of my honest friends are confused.. - obviouslymike - November 7, 2002 - 08:01 UTC
            • I would reply - harvey1 - November 7, 2002 - 13:26 UTC
            • Please be quiet - yaniru - November 7, 2002 - 15:35 UTC
              • (Laughing) - harvey1 - November 7, 2002 - 15:51 UTC
      • Come on... - bruce - November 6, 2002 - 16:09 UTC
    • Bruce- Check the discussion between Van Flandsem and Kopeikin - yaniru - November 6, 2002 - 16:04 UTC
      • Van Flandern is full of it... - bruce - November 6, 2002 - 16:11 UTC
• Weak field - cosmotiger - November 5, 2002 - 21:53 UTC
• help message and escape velocity from black holes - omniac - February 15, 2003 - 17:59 UTC